Attn:Hse intimidates family who sought better services in Meath.

Ajnag

Im bringing this to light that just one week before the meath by-election the hse has got a court order to take four autistic children into care. The parents just happen to be disabled campaigners, I think they were also featured on last years prime time about the lack of services for the disabled in Ireland.

This is personal to me as my sister also suffers from mental handicap and for years my parents have fought tooth and nail to gain just basic services for her and others. There will be a protest in kells on monday afaik and if you happen to be from the area it would be appreciated were you to attend.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg2l6qZONnfLMsgdL11Zs5FWAE.asp

HSE given court order to take children in care
By Eddie Cassidy
THE health authorities last night secured a court order to place four autistic children in care.

The controversial decision followed a claim, earlier this week by a Meath family, that they had been denied basic support services.

The parents of the children, Padraig and Mary O'Hara, last night voluntarily agreed to having their children placed in care after gardaí and social workers, in possession of a court order, arrived at their Kells home.

The children will remain in care over the weekend.

The parents, who were both forced to give up their jobs to provide round-the-clock care, had spoken publicly, earlier this week about their struggle with the health authorities.



The couple said they had been battling for several years to get basic support and education services for their children. The family has a fifth child who attends a normal school.

A family solicitor attended at the O'Hara home last night. Following lengthy discussions the parents agreed to voluntarily place their children in temporary respite care.

In the past, the children had been looked after some weekends by foster families. The health authorities had also withdrawn funding to provide care assistants.

The distraught parents said they were being punished for highlighting the State's negligence in support for the children.

Mr O'Hara said he was devastated at the actions of the health board.

The local health board had assessed the family over a year ago and compiled a report detailing its needs. However, no further action was taken by the board.

Mr O'Hara said: "We were told we had to make a deal or they could legally arrest us for obstructing them in their job. We've been in negotiations with them for the last 11 months over a package of services and dealing generally with the health board for two and half years. Yet, they've been able to get a court order in just six hours."

The care order is due to be dealt with before a district court on Monday.

In a statement last night, the HSE said children had been taken into care under the Children's Act. The agency said the decision was taken to ensure the children's safety and welfare.

"In the interests of the parent and the child in this case, we will not be making any further comment," the spokeswoman added.

The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.

The two youngest cannot feed or dress themselves and are not toilet-trained.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1353687&issue_id=12181

Parents stunned by sudden health service action

A FAMILY with four autistic boys were last night forced to put their children into respite care for the weekend after the local Health Service Executive (HSE) threatened to take the boys into care.

Mary and Padraig O'Hara from Kells, Co Meath, had to drive their five children to Navan last night to hand them over to the HSE for the weekend.

Last night they claimed they were being "punished" for speaking to the media about their plight.

The Irish Independent on Thursday featured the story of the O'Hara family and their battles with the health board.

Parents Mary and Padraig were at their wits' end battling the former North Eastern Health Board for services for their five children, including four autistic boys aged 13 to four. Their oldest boy Fionn (16) is dyslexic.

The two older boys, Oisin and Blaine, were in school in Blanchardstown but no school place was available for two younger boys, Seadna and Cinonnaola (4), who are severely autistic. They are not toilet trained, and cannot clothe or feed themselves.

Last night Padraig said he and his wife were shocked and stunned at the HSE's actions.

"We've been in negotiations with them for the last 11 months over a package of services and have been dealing generally with the health board for two and half years, yet now they've been able to get a court order in just six hours.

"We were told we had to make deal or they could legally arrest us for obstucting them in their job. So we're going to be without them (the children) for the weekend," he said.

Last year the family were assessed by UK specialists who recommended a range of services including physiotherapy, speech and occupational therapy, be made available to them, as they were in dire need of it.

Both parents gave up their jobs to mind the children full time.

The family was hopeful that the HSE would deliver on the services.

In a meeting with a social worker from the HSE yesterday morning, both parents expressed their dismay, telling the social worker that they were at their wits' end.

It is understood the social worker acted, along with the HSE, to get a care order yesterday afternoon to have the five boys taken into care.

Gardai and officials from the HSE arrived at the family home at about tea-time with the order.

There was a standoff for a time. The family managed to get a solicitor to intervene. He negotiated a deal that would allow the family to place the children in voluntary care.

Just before 9pm, Padraig loaded up the family car and the boys.

A spokeswoman for the Health Services Executive (North Eastern Area) declined to comment on the case except to say that under the Childcare Act it had an obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of children.

"In the interests of the the parent and the child in this case, we will not be making any further comment," the spokeswoman added.

Sorry mods about the c&p's but this has to be done.
To let this sort of base behaviour occur in this day and age is scandelous, and in light of Irelands past with reguards to care for the disabled people should be held to account.

the_syco

I didn't read the articles you posted, but I read about it in todays Indo.

I think the state acted in a disgraceful manner, if the mother is telling the truth.

Seemingly, untill the public were notified through media, the state took no heed of the familys' plight, giving the answer of "not enough resource's" if the state was questioned. When the public found out, the state was able, in 6 hours, get a court order to bring the children into state care. If the family, who has been trying to get state aid to help them (both parents had to quit their jobs to take care of the children), tries to stop the state, they are blocking the state from doing their job, and thus can be arrested.

I can neither critise nor support the state or the family at the moment, as I only know the mothers story, and therefore will wait untill the state issue's its statement, before I make a judgement.

The state will proberly give a statement on Monday, after the court hearing, involving the family's parents, and the state.

leeroybrown

If the facts of this situation are as they appear then I sincerely hope the family in question get a nice legal settlement from it to help them to care for their children.

Ajnag

syco, I understand your reservation at the moment, but given the speed of the process on the states part I just have to wonder whats going on.

This also shows the needs for rights based legislation, the govt has done everything to avoid giving the disabled in Ireland their rights which I suspect are already guarenteed under eu law. A disabled person in Ireland has no right to property and the state can, and has taken property of disabled people and placed them in sub human conditions in the past.

On that note, Cork?
What do you have to say on the matter considering fianna fail pressence in the majority of Irish govt's and do you oppose rights based legislation?

Leeroy, I would suspect that if things are as they seem their will be a settlement, but to those concerned bringing light to the issue and getting public support for rights based legislation would secure the future of a lot of vunerable people, if this is what it appears getting public attention is crucial.

Also I might note that with autism a regular pattern is vital, what the state is doing will cause problems for months with these children.

Ajnag

Thought ye'd be desperate for break from the provo stuff by now. Ho, Hum.

gandalf

Well it just shows how all the extra staff that FF hurriedly got in before the last election, I believe the number is 15,000 mainly admin staff have really helped the situation. Services haven't improved but once the department is made look bad they swing into action quite rapidally.

It actually sickens me with all the funds they have wasted on pet projects over the wasted years of this FF/PD Government between the Bertie Bowl, Electronic Voting and numerous other red herrings and our Health Service is still a shambles.

ishmael whale

While I would never rush to the defence of health service management, and if the legal system is being used to intimidate people that is clearly unacceptable. But there should be some acknowledgement that it must be highly unusual to have to provide a service package for four children with autism in the same family.

While it doesn’t help the people in this particular case, it does change my perception of the State’s role in the promotion of family planning. Up to this I’d have looked back on the unhappy political history of that agenda, and said the State should simply stay out of the debate and let people do as they please. But potentially some good could be done by promoting a responsible attitude to parenthood.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=58125034&p=58yz5336&n=58125414

07/03/2005 - 7:58:48 AM

Meath couple begin fight to regain custody of children

A Co Meath couple are due to begin a legal battle today to regain custody of their children from the Health Service Executive. Gardaí and social workers took the O'Hara's five children into state care on Friday night. Four of the boys are autistic, while the fifth suffers from dyslexia…..

Boggle

I

ishmael whale wrote:

But there should be some acknowledgement that it must be highly unusual to have to provide a service package for four children with autism in the same family.

Surely that should have meant that this family would have been given priority - no???

Typical of this govt, they only move when it is deemed harmful to their re-electability. And then its in a manner as disgraceful as this....

ishmael whale

I’m not really making any defence of the HSE, other than noting that this is hardly a typical case. I’m totally open to hearing the case made for better services for people with disabilities.

But my honest first reaction to media coverage of this particular case was incredulity at how anyone would put themselves in the position of having four autistic children. Our cock-eyed debates over contraception have cast a long shadow.

Ajnag

how anyone would put themselves in the position of having four autistic children.

Afaik It can take two to four years to diagnose autism, But short of asking the parents themselves its not relevant to the issue at hand and the beahviour of the hse.
Also tho Im not sure, their oldest son isnt autistic.

In any case, the dramatic removal of 5 children from a family at short notice is the issue here. The parents have made huge sacrifices, and have never been deemed unfit or dangerous up until now, so these actions by the hse must be held in this light as irresponsible if not scandelous.

ishmael whale

Clearly the HSE can’t go round taking people’s children off them without due cause, and presumably the Courts will short that out one way or the other.

There’s also the general issue of services for people with disabilities. Up to this the health services haven’t been associated with good management, so there’s no reason to believe this service sector will be any different.

But, for all that, the more my incredulity grows. This is from one of the articles you posted up above.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/...dL11Zs5FWAE.asp
“The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.”

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

Ajnag

Clearly the HSE can’t go round taking people’s children off them without due cause, and presumably the Courts will short that out one way or the other.

I would presume the hse can take children into custody as a matter of need in emergency, they wouldnt be able to protect children otherwise. However as Ive stated the disabled in this state have no rights, there isnt nessisarly any recourse as the laws stand at this point in time. Hence the need for rights based legislation.

The hse still havent made a statement yet, this stinks to high hell.

Once again, Im asking for cork to make a statement on what fianna fails stance is on the issue of rights for the disabled, and I would also hope that the constituants of meath will seek explanation in light of fridays elections.

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

Without a case history or specifics how are you to know?. Also I doubt their is a medical relation between dyslexia and autism so it wouldnt exactly be a pre-cursor or warning sign. Also once again its not relevant to this thread and the issue at hand, so feel free to start a thread if you wish to discuss your views further.

sceptre

ishmael whale wrote:

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

I can recall reading somewhere that the autism was only diagnosed for any of the children in 2002 (no idea which newspaper). Odd and all as that sounds. It's the last two (born in quick succession as you'll notice) that are reported to suffer severely. I have to admit that my initial thought was the same as yours until I read of the diagnosis date. While the signs of autism can be spotted relatively early (not necessarily definitively, but certainly as possible indicators), regardless of whether it's infantile autism or regressive autism many of them can be dismissed as a child being unusually quite or shy or hyperactive, self-interested or interested in repetitive play or fascinated with specific things (while these are the basic indicators of possible autism they're also in a simple sense things that could refer to any child you meet) especially where the child has reasonably high-functioning autism (as would appear to be the case with the second and third children given that they appear to be in regular schools) and even the basis mindblindness tests that any parent can do don't become useful until the child hits three or four years of age. Rare as it may be, if any of the children are suffering from childhood disintigrative disorder, they would most likely have had completely normal development until about age four. So it's not quite as simple as wondering why they continued to have children. Fom my own point of view (bring something of a thoroughly modern, er, Milton), I wouldn't understand the idea of anyone planning more than two children in any event (though I come from a family of four nippers and my girlfriend comes from one of seven) so to each their own.

So in other words, while it should take two to four years, it might not (thorough the fault of no-one) and I'd hazard an unverifiable opinion that the health boards, given that they're too stretched to provide help to parents with four autistic children, might not be the best at noticing that four children are autistic in the first place (assuming that the reported date of 2002 was correct they did eventually notice the second child was autistic when he was 10). Incidentally, in line with the traditional "some of my best friends are <insert prejudice here>" defence, my girlfriend works for one of the other health boards, though not in a capacity that would generally involve dealing with the public. Not that this acts as an actual defence or backs up my "health board in possible plonker shocker" comment in any way.

Obviously the dyslexia of the eldest child is a potential red herring and isn't really all that relevant in the first place (unless the papers are throwing it in either without understanding exactly what it is (I note that they don't mention whether Fionn suffers from something as simple as scotopic sensitivity or as potentially problematic as dyscalculia or dyspraxia) or just to mention that the parents have had a child requiring extra attention before the second through fifth).

billy the squid

Is dyslexia a good enough reason to take the fifth child into custody?

any health board employee who is willing to break up a family rather than offer better assistance to that family should be ashamed of themselves.

surely there would have had to have been a court case to decide whether or not the parents were capable of caring for these children.

The hse still havent made a statement yet, this stinks to high hell.

damn right it does, some social worker has a bee in her bonnet. it wouldnt surprise me if the same social worker has threatened other families. I can think of one in Limerick who had this mannerism about her.

Ajnag

While I could pass a hell of a social commentry on social workers, but I wont.


I would wonder tho, how much research and investigation is made when a person applys for the job. Little to none is what I would bet and considering the power and responsiblity they recieve, It all seems quite disproportionate.
Its also worth noting the amount of political manipulation that occurs with in the civil services.

billy the squid

you will be waiting a long time for a statement from the health board. unless its the usual "we dont comment on individual cases" ****e.

had this happened ten or twenty years ago it would not have even made the news to be honest.

whats the odds on this being turned into a by-election issue. If it gets the family re-united then I suppose it can only be a good thing if it is used as an election issue.

Clearly the HSE can’t go round taking people’s children off them without due cause, and presumably the Courts will short that out one way or the other.

the right to do so is usually buried in some law which is older than you or I.

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

Without a case history or specifics how are you to know?

Without a case history or specifics, how are you so certain that the HSE action is wrong?

Ajnag wrote:

Also I doubt their is a medical relation between dyslexia and autism so it wouldnt exactly be a pre-cursor or warning sign. .

Clearly the dyslexia is only relevant in the context of planning a family where one child already requires extra support. The question relates more to the second and third child, where there seems to be a clear gap of four years between each.

Ajnag wrote:

Also once again its not relevant to this thread and the issue at hand, so feel free to start a thread if you wish to discuss your views further.

If you are seeking support for this case you have to expect that people are going to discuss it. I’ve certainly had enough of public debate in this country proceeding on the basis of avoiding embarrassing questions.

Sceptre wrote:

I can recall reading somewhere that the autism was only diagnosed for any of the children in 2002

That makes more sense. FWIW, I have discovered a report here http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/sped_autism.pdf that identifies late diagnosis of autism as a feature of the Irish health service. It seems to be a particular problem where the condition is mild. That said, the impression I get from this report is that parents are aware their child has some significant problem, but simply can’t get it acknowledged.

billy the squid wrote:

the right to do so is usually buried in some law which is older than you or I.

From what I can gather from a quick google, the relevant legislation is the Child Care Act 1991, which gives health boards (and presumably now the HSE) power to take children into care. There also seems to be some relevant provisions in the Children’s Act 2001.

Ajnag

Without a case history or specifics, how are you so certain that the HSE action is wrong?

Maybe just the convience of it all, that after years of the parents making huge sacrifices, that their children just get taken off them. Maybe also the convienence of the fact that they were making life tough for the hse. Maybe just for the fact that their is no evidense publicly visable to suggest the parents were in anyway unfit or a danger to their children.

If you are seeking support for this case you have to expect that people are going to discuss it. I’ve certainly had enough of public debate in this country proceeding on the basis of avoiding embarrassing questions.

Its not the discussion that I mind, its blase attitude to the parents on your part. Also its the parents ability to care for the children thats the question here, To infer that they were grossly negligent without any knowledge on your part is a disscussion more suited to a eugenics thread. How do you know that they werent advised otherwise by the medical profession as to the state of health of their next child? How many unknown's do you want to assume your knowledge encompass's?

This is about the conduct of the hse and weather or not they were right to remove 5 children from a home, and the rights of the disabled and their familys in Ireland.

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

This is about the conduct of the hse and weather or not they were right to remove 5 children from a home, and the rights of the disabled and their familys in Ireland.

If you put something out in the public domain people are going to react with what they think rather than what you want them to think. Its called democracy and, in most of the world, it hasn’t really caught on because its so damn inconvenient when people disagree with what you want to be the consensus.

On re-reading the thread I have one clear conclusion. Neither you nor I have enough information to comment on this case. I don’t know enough to query the background to the case and you don’t know enough to query the HSE’s action.

I don’t doubt that useful points can be made about services for people with disabilities and what’s wrong with them. But jumping on the bandwagon of a particular case that you don’t really know the specifics of is not a good way of making them.

Incidently, I’m not sure if ‘eugenics’ is necessarily the same thing as a responsible approach to fertility, where you seem to go further than me. I’m simply advocating promotion of family planning, whereas you seem comfortable with compulsory fertility control for teenagers.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2388598#post2388598

Ajnag wrote:

Myre's may be a wanker, but that still dosnt exuse the no. of young women/girls on our streets using pushchairs as battering rams. Temporary sterilisation(if its possible without side effects) till 18 should be mandatory.
Oh but then our appointed moral guardians would bitch about the excess of underage sex :rolleyes:
As if it didnt already exist....

Boggle

On re-reading the thread I have one clear conclusion. Neither you nor I have enough information to comment on this case. I don’t know enough to query the background to the case and you don’t know enough to query the HSE’s action.

"We've been in negotiations with them for the last 11 months over a package of services and have been dealing generally with the health board for two and half years, yet now they've been able to get a court order in just six hours.

You may feel that you do not have enough information but I would suggest that there are enough question marks hanging over this case to warrant some serious questions. Matters would be made so much the clearer if the HSE would at least give a statement explaining why, only after being embarassed publicly, that they decided to take action - and then why the action was so dramatic. In effect their action is tantamount to punishing the family for going public.

I would also suggest that if they were such bad parents, then why did it take so long to get the kids to custody? Either way something stinks in the HSE's actions.

Ishmael, you appear to be more interested in asking why did they have handicapped kids in the first place. I suppose the childrens rights don't matter to you if they are handicapped. No?!?

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

Matters would be made so much the clearer if the HSE would at least give a statement explaining why, only after being embarassed publicly, that they decided to take action….

Clearly the HSE can’t get into the business of publishing the details of every (or any ) case where they take a child into care. If you reflect on it the best course of action to take is simply silence, and the let the process take its course.

Boggle wrote:

I suppose the childrens rights don't matter to you if they are handicapped. No?!?

This kind of ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ question impresses no-one.

Boggle

This kind of ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ question impresses no-one.

In this case a valid question. Most of your points are centred around family planning and 'Why did they allow themselves to have 4 autistic children?'

Unless you are arguing that this makes them incapable parents, then this has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is centred around the HSE coming in and taking their children under very questionable circumstances - without having to answer to anyone in the short term.

ishmael whale

In case you haven’t noticed, in post 19, I conceded that I don’t have enough background to the case to make any comments one way or the other. Equally you don’t know enough to make any sensible comment on the HSE’s action.

So what are you saying? That the normal rules regarding confidentiality in such cases should be suspended if parents contact the media, or during a by-election, or what? Do you really think the situation would be improved if the HSE and parents of children in care got into public slagging matches on the merits of their respective cases?

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

This thread is centred around the HSE coming in and taking their children under very questionable circumstances - without having to answer to anyone in the short term.

But if they did habe to answer to someone in the short term....this would be equally be open to abuse, where someone could hold up a valid intervention by simply claiming bias.

I'm sure then that we'd have no shortage of ppl queueing up to say how unacceptable it was that the welfare of whoever was denied help (even temporarily) in such a situation should be the primary concern, and that it is not acceptable that initial accountability could be used as a tool to prevent that.

No matter which way you structure the rules, they're open to abuse.

jc

Ajnag

ishmael whale wrote:

If you put something out in the public domain people are going to react with what they think rather than what you want them to think. Its called democracy and, in most of the world, it hasn’t really caught on because its so damn inconvenient when people disagree with what you want to be the consensus.

Your lecturing me on democracy now?
Get over yourself and dont be such a pious shít,
If you read this thread so well, then you might have noticed:

Its not the discussion that I mind, its blase attitude to the parents on your part.

You poor oppressed soul you, I simply asked that you consider taking this to another thread ffs! Not that you ffin cease and desist!!!

You asked for this:

TEKKIT!

ishmael wrote:

On re-reading the thread I have one clear conclusion. Neither you nor I have enough information to comment on this case. I don’t know enough to query the background to the case and you don’t know enough to query the HSE’s action.

I don’t doubt that useful points can be made about services for people with disabilities and what’s wrong with them. But jumping on the bandwagon of a particular case that you don’t really know the specifics of is not a good way of making them.

We know about the parent history, we know their position, we know that the hse acted hastely and we know that they have made no statements to defend their positions.

I find it funny you can talk of freedom of speech one minute, and then try to deconstruct an argument through fear of the bandwagon the next.

Incidently, I’m not sure if ‘eugenics’ is necessarily the same thing as a responsible approach to fertility, where you seem to go further than me. I’m simply advocating promotion of family planning, whereas you seem comfortable with compulsory fertility control for teenagers.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2388598#post2388598

Well, thats cute, in your haste to cross reference my comments in another thread and establish your own piety you missed something called tounge in cheek. I was humourously suggesting that even if we could stop teenage pregnancy, people would moan reguardlessly.

Other then that what boggle said.


Bonkey, good points, and I agree that the hse needs the powers so that they can protect kids in danger. However, as remains to be seen with this case these laws may be open to abuse.

ishmael whale

Leaving aside the padding, and the clever use of an accent on the ‘I’ to get past the editor, you claim

We know about the parent history, which we don’t.

We know their (the parents) position, which we do from statements they have made to the media.

We know that the HSE acted hastily, which is presumably not unusual in cases where children are taken into care.

We know that they (HSE) have made no statements to defend their position which is what they generally do in any individual case, as they have an obligation to respect client confidentiality even when they are being criticised in the media.

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

An interesting take on reality, can’t say I support it myself.

Boggle

But if they did habe to answer to someone in the short term....this would be equally be open to abuse, where someone could hold up a valid intervention by simply claiming bias.

I'm sure then that we'd have no shortage of ppl queueing up to say how unacceptable it was that the welfare of whoever was denied help (even temporarily) in such a situation should be the primary concern, and that it is not acceptable that initial accountability could be used as a tool to prevent that.

No matter which way you structure the rules, they're open to abuse.

Indeed. And I do agree that what must be of highest priority is the children's welfare. I take exception to this case due to the dubious circumstances. From what I can gather, the HSE had been in contact with them for quite a long period of time with little or no action. Next thing the family go public highlighting the failings of the HSE and the children are taken away.

My main worry is that this would send the wrong signals to other families in similar circumstances who might now be afraid to speak out about their plight lest their children be whisked away. What I would like to see, given that this case is in the public domain, is a public representative examine the case and at least come out and say that a) yes they had a reason for reoving the kids and b) it was not an act of retribution from the HSE.

I would also argue that acting in such a hastey manner may have detrimental effects on the kids as (i think a previous poster stated) autistic kids need routine and it could take months to settle them even if they were returned even tomorrow.

Ajnag

ishmael whale wrote:

Leaving aside the padding, and the clever use of an accent on the ‘I’ to get past the editor, you claim

Nothing clever, just giving you the reaction you were fishing for and more.

ishmael whale wrote:

We know about the parent history, which we don’t.

We know that they have coped for years, we know that they were on primetime last years and the details of their lives reveiled from that, we know that they have given up their respective careers to care for the children.

Wanna know what they eat for breakfast?

We know their (the parents) position, which we do from statements they have made to the media.

We also know of their support from the various disablilty groups round the country. We know that they are active participants in campaiging for the disabled and if anything have shown no apathy towards the care of their children.

We know that the HSE acted hastily, which is presumably not unusual in cases where children are taken into care.

When children are in danger, there is no disputing the hse's authority! point blank full stop. The hse has not even stated that it felt the children were in danger, why?, In other case's it has had the ability to do so, so why not now.

We know that they (HSE) have made no statements to defend their position which is what they generally do in any individual case, as they have an obligation to respect client confidentiality even when they are being criticised in the media.

The hse has the right to state their reasons for doing so within certain bounds. Their slience up to date is somewhat questionable. Even with confidentiality, they will have to state their case in a public court of law in full view. They have little reason for their silence.

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

Once again you take my comments totally out of context, my view is that the parents family planning was irrelevant to this topic!
Im not going to repeat myself, If you want to comment on the parents family planning which you have nothing to base your views on, then knock yourself out. Still do'snt mean your smug and irrlevant stances on this thread is justifyed.

An interesting take on reality, can’t say I support it myself.

Reality? what reality?
The one where your never wrong?
:rolleyes:

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

Nothing clever, just giving you the reaction you were fishing for and more.

So long as you feel better, that’s the main thing.

You open a thread with a couple of articles, essentially calling for support for the parents on grounds that the HSE had taken their children into care on nebulous grounds. I looked at it, gave my first honest reaction of how do you wake up one morning and find you have four children with autism and one with dyslexia. My first thought is, indeed, more about how an accident waiting to happen came into being rather than whether the HSE have due cause to take the children into care. But take it as evidence that two people can look at the same thing and not see the same significance.

A few people make a few suggestions of varying quality, from pointing out that it is possible that someone could get in this pickle without necessarily being irresponsible to pointing out that a definitive statement would require access to the case history. Clearly there’s no reason for the case history to be out in the public domain. I accept there’s not enough to go on to make statements one way or the other. That includes second guessing the HSE’s decision to obtain a Court order.

You seem to accept that all we have to go on is media coverage, and that the only people talking to the media are the family. So, however, you dress it up, there’s really only their views to go on. So, again, you want us to uncritically accept that if someone takes their case to the media we should accept that without question.

I note you say the HSE has the right to state their reasons “within certain bounds.” Can you clarify this? I understand that they will ultimately have to state their case in a court of law, but I thought in family related matters there would still be an element of anonymity for obvious reasons. But, in practical terms, the HSE’s obligation is to ensure this family can be re-united. I don’t see how that obligation can be reconciled with your desire to see them engage in a public slagging match.

To get you back on track, I’m accepting that I don’t have enough information to comment on how more State promotion of family planning might have helped in this particular case. Do you accept you don’t have enough information to say more than ‘we should keep an eye on the outcome of this case’ rather than the unqualified demand for support that you started with?

Ajnag

ishmael whale wrote:

You seem to accept that all we have to go on is media coverage, and that the only people talking to the media are the family. So, however, you dress it up, there’s really only their views to go on. So, again, you want us to uncritically accept that if someone takes their case to the media we should accept that without question.

I dont expect a lack of critism on your part, however their are facts we can take from media coverage, to help us assess the situation. We can accept as fact the sacrifices made on the parents part, we can accept as fact the lack of support from the state, we can accept as fact the lack of rights for the disabled within Ireland, and Im sure we can both agree on the poor state of the Irish health service.
We can also accept that up until now, these parents have been in regular contact with the hse and social workers(unlike the vast majority of parents with healthy children) and that as such there is a track record of where up until the week the parents ask for care in public they have been judged as fit parents. A track record of sorts.

Granted something might have come to the attention of the hse as of late to cause them due concern, but that brings me to the next point.

I note you say the HSE has the right to state their reasons “within certain bounds.” Can you clarify this? I understand that they will ultimately have to state their case in a court of law, but I thought in family related matters there would still be an element of anonymity for obvious reasons. But, in practical terms, the HSE’s obligation is to ensure this family can be re-united. I don’t see how that obligation can be reconciled with your desire to see them engage in a public slagging match.

Is it outside the bounds of confidentiality and anonymity(irrelevant due to media coverage anyway) to state their was a fear for the welfare of the children. Cant say for sure but havent such statements been made in past?
Maybe they are doing what they have to by legal advise, maybe by political advise considering the upcomming elections.

I dont want a slagging match, I do however wish that pressure be applied considering the rash manner of procedings considering the potential damage to the children concerned. Also to note is not just the lack of a public statement, but of any statement made to the parents even.

Do you accept you don’t have enough information to say more than ‘we should keep an eye on the outcome of this case’ rather than the unqualified demand for support that you started with?

Ill admit that I cant make definate statements, but my demand for support comes from a vested intrest I stated clearly at the start. The conduct of sucessive goverments and the hse have affected me and my family and it is clear to see even to those unaffected that this country has a shamefull track record on the matter.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

Leaving aside the padding, and the clever use of an accent on the ‘I’ to get past the editor, you claim

We know about the parent history, which we don’t.

We do actually.

The parents where featured as a part of an award winning prime time special from last year. Two of their children are twins the two older autistic children were diagnosised after the birth diagnosis of the other children. In short they didn't know until after all four were born.

I've knowledge of the prime time special. The parents don't sleep, period, maybe a couple of hours a night. Their eldest is a nice well adjusted child as could be in the circumstances. The parents are coping as well as possible in the cicumstances. They are victims of misfortune who did not know their children could or would be autistic, and if you witnessed what they are going through frankly you would not wish it on anyone. They love their children desperately, but can't cope.

We know their (the parents) position, which we do from statements they have made to the media.

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

An interesting take on reality, can’t say I support it myself.

They originally took their case to the media, a year ago, in a brillant senstive documentary which asked questions about the forthcoming (and still forthcoming) disability bill. If you can watch the program, do. I'm not kidding these two people barely get a nights sleep between them, every week. They're angry bitter and frustrated, with everyone, but most esp with themselves. They're parents who are frustrated they can't care for their children. I can't think of a greater torture for a loving parent to see your child suffer and not be able to fix it.

I would suggest you research your topic further before picking up the rock to cast the first stone.

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

Is it outside the bounds of confidentiality and anonymity(irrelevant due to media coverage anyway) to state their was a fear for the welfare of the children. Cant say for sure but havent such statements been made in past?

I’m not claiming any expertise on the law, but I noticed this article in the Examiner. I know we’ve seen names in print all over the place, but it looks like the actual legal process has some confidentiality clause.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg3Yd4fmt7zEosg7IQHSmeYhNE.asp
“…The family are from Co Meath but the legislation under which the health authorities acted prohibits publication of their identity despite their willingness to go public with their plight….”

Ajnag wrote:

Ill admit that I cant make definate statements, but my demand for support comes from a vested intrest I stated clearly at the start. The conduct of sucessive goverments and the hse have affected me and my family and it is clear to see even to those unaffected that this country has a shamefull track record on the matter.

Fine, and in fairness if it subsequently transpires that the HSE have abused their power it is frightening. Clearly HSE need to be able to take children into care at short notice, but we depend on them to use that power ethically.

Mycroft wrote:

The parents where featured as a part of an award winning prime time special from last year. Two of their children are twins ....

Just to illustrate that we can’t rely on the media for the details of the case, look at the ages below. Which two are the twins?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/...dL11Zs5FWAE.asp
The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/...dL11Zs5FWAE.asp
The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.

Ishmael my mistake.

I worked on the documentary I mentioned. I've watched literally 30 or 40 hours of footage of the family. A nights sleep is harrowing for the parents; They're good honest people.

If you doubt my claim i'll pm supporting evidence to a politics mod of your choice.

ishmael whale

I’ve no problem accepting that having four children with autism is a draining experience, and I’ve no problem believing the people concerned are essentially decent folk. I don’t doubt seeing their daily lives would create empathy, and a desire to see them right.

But to evaluate the actions of the HSE requires more information than we have, and more information than we can reasonably be expected to obtain. The HSE do seem to have restrictions on what they can publically state, and that seems reasonable. Maybe they have abused that power, but I don’t see that reliance on media coverage is a more reliable process than requiring the HSE to obtain a court order, and to subsequently defend their actions in court.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

But to evaluate the actions of the HSE requires more information than we have, and more information than we can reasonably be expected to obtain. The HSE do seem to have restrictions on what they can publically state, and that seems reasonable. Maybe they have abused that power, but I don’t see that reliance on media coverage is a more reliable process than requiring the HSE to obtain a court order, and to subsequently defend their actions in court.

No but this is a family thats been begging for HSE support for years. A report has stated that they're a good family who love care and support for their children.

But the support they've recieved from the south eastern health board has been pathetic.

And after years of negigble support from the HSE afte their eldest child runs away, because he can't take the strain any more, the family are taken into care, it's a horrific. After years of asking for some residential respite care (just a night or two a week and help with day care) the children are taken from them.

You need to see these kids, their autism is so advance some of them lack basic communication skills, language skills, toilet training. They need help. They love their family, they asked for help for years, and when none was forthcoming, the state snapped and took the children away. What would you do. They've suffered in silence for years, and the movement to the press was one of desperate. It's worth noting that after yesterdays meeting, the family refused comment. They're not interested in point scoring. They're interested about keeping their family together, and can't do that without some degree of state support. Which they barely recieve at this moment

Ajnag

Unfortunatly the primetime archives only go back, as far as last october, so its not on the net any more. I was going to link otherwise.

The parents afaik only get 2 hours sleep a night, Drive over 60 miles to get the kid's to special needs schools and whats also worth noting is that when they went to england for consultation, they were given a psychological review that came out quite favourable, so for the hse to suddenly obtain an order seems somewhat unreasonable.

Also worth noting is why the court order, when the hse could have offered a period of respite instead?

Maybe there is no malice in the hse's actions, but I find this hard to belive. The lack of an offer of respite being the first suspicion, second the hse's familiarity with the family history such that someone in a managerial postion probably had to approve the proceedings against the family(Well I hope so anyway, scary to think low level civil servants could make such powerfull decisions).

If not malice then possibly a serious break in hse procedure, but even then the implications of that are serious. In any case, the implications of this action on the children are serious, authistic kid's need repeditive patterns in their daily lives, this will cause harm.

ishmael whale

I’m not suggesting the parents are not decent people who want the best for their children and clearly no-one would actively seek to get into this situation. But you have to accept that having four children with autism in one family, and a fifth who requires extra help, is a highly unusual situation. I would find it surprising if a typical experience was that a couple could have five children over sixteen years, and only discover after twelve years that all of those children have special needs of some kind.

Its hard to see any real solution for this situation, only some level of mitigation. I don’t doubt if there are general problems in the delivery of services for people with disabilities then this family’s problems must be magnified. However, even in countries with reasonable levels of service provision I don’t doubt coping with so many children with extra needs within the one household would be difficult.

So, all in all, if someone presented a case of a couple with a child needing some particular support and not getting it, I would feel this illustrates that such services are inadequate. If someone presents a case of someone with five children needing various supports and not getting them I can appreciate that they are carrying an enormous burden. But I can equally appreciate that the HSE would have problems in working out a way forward.

Its not as if this is the only demand being made on the health services, which you’ll recall in the past was reduced to rifling pensions to pay for its costs. (In fact refunding that money now means there is even less available to meet demands on the health service.)

mycroft wrote:

.... the support they've recieved from the south eastern health board has been pathetic.

We don’t know enough about the case to make any sensible comment. You may feel that you have a familiarity with the case because you participated in making a documentary, but I’m not sure you know as much as you think. I’m not trying to play silly buggers, but you seem to have made a second error of fact. I take in that, unless this family only recently moved to Kells, that before the HSE came into existence their case was dealt with by the North Eastern Health Board.

I’m not saying this is material, any more than the fact of whether the family included twins is essentially material. I’m just pointing out that I can contradict the information you provide in some respects simply on the basis of what is already in the public domain.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not saying this is material, any more than the fact of whether the family included twins is essentially material. I’m just pointing out that I can contradict the information you provide in some respects simply on the basis of what is already in the public domain.

two errors of fact, the children were born close to each other and before the elder child was diagnosised.

You stood judgement over the family because of the size and number of autistic children they have, as if they had brought their woes onto themselves.

South Eastern/North Eastern, I'll chalk that one up to an honest mistake, I did post at past 11 at night and it'd been a long day. It's a superficial factual error and you're making more out of it then it deserves...

ishmael whale

mycroft wrote:

You stood judgement over the family because of the size and number of autistic children they have, as if they had brought their woes onto themselves.

I have no influence in the situation one way or the other, so I’m standing in judgment on nobody. Yes, in my own mind I still wonder how anyone could get themselves into this situation and, yes, in my own mind I’m conscious that there’s a difference between saying the diagnosis of autism came in 2002 and saying it was only in 2002 that any problem was noticeable. But that just my own perception. I accept we don’t have enough details on the case to prognosticate. But that cuts both ways.
If we take the freeze-frame of the moment, we can say this family must be operating under tremendous pressure. We can watch film footage of their daily lives, and hear their own account of how they feel about their situation and about the HSE. But that doesn’t tell us how this situation occurred or what the HSE are doing about it.
For what its worth the HSE did make a general statement of its obligation to protect children. That’s not to say they have behaved correctly – but the minimal acknowledgement that some contributors wanted to see seems to have been given.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0308/212759523HM1OHARA.html
“…. The Health Service Executive (North Eastern Area) was last night unavailable for comment. It stated last weekend that it could not comment on the case except to say that under the Childcare Act it had an obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of children..”

mycroft wrote:

South Eastern/North Eastern, I'll chalk that one up to an honest mistake, I did post at past 11 at night and it'd been a long day. It's a superficial factual error and you're making more out of it then it deserves...

I’m not suggesting that either this or your statement about the family including twins has any material impact on the discussion. I’m just posing the very obvious question that if a gob****e like me can pick you up on two points simply from superficial information gathered from whatever news reports I’ve come across, what might I be able to pick you up on if I had some substantive knowledge. You might have seen a lot of disturbing footage, but I’m not sure you have a real grip on the facts of the case. If it’s a programme you did that won an award I’d sort have expect the knowledge you gained would have stuck.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not suggesting that either this or your statement about the family including twins has any material impact on the discussion. I’m just posing the very obvious question that if a gob****e like me can pick you up on two points simply from superficial information gathered from whatever news reports I’ve come across, what might I be able to pick you up on if I had some substantive knowledge. You might have seen a lot of disturbing footage, but I’m not sure you have a real grip on the facts of the case. If it’s a programme you did that won an award I’d sort have expect the knowledge you gained would have stuck.

The documentary featured four families with over a hundred hours of footage from the four.

You you did pick my argument apart. I got north eastern and south eastern health board mixed up. Thats nothing to do with my knowledge of the facts, thats a simple slip of the tongue, or key stroke.

As for the children, the two youngest were difficult to tell apart, and it has been a year. I forgot may have gotten into my head as twins.

My job was not creative or editorial; I just logged, and watched hours upon hours of footage of the family. I worked on the documentary one of about a half dozen I did last year; I never took credit for it.

I think you're being pedantic, you stood judgement over the family early on and feel you need to justify your situation by belittling anyone with any degree of insight beyond the cursory check you did before demanding to know why the family had four autistic children.

ishmael whale

mycroft wrote:

I think you're being pedantic, you stood judgement over the family early on and feel you need to justify your situation by belittling anyone with any degree of insight beyond the cursory check you did before demanding to know why the family had four autistic children.

I’m not trying to belittle you or anyone else and I’m not claiming any particular knowledge of the case, other than what has been reported. I am querying your claim to possess ‘insight’ into the case. You might have seen a lot of distressing footage of the family, and you might find it hard to be objective about the case. But that's not insight.

If its down to perceptions, I have the feeling that you are trying to bring the argument back to how this situation came to pass (even though I have conceded several times that we don’t know enough to comment sensibly) because you feel that is a point where you don’t have to concede any ground.

I don’t see why anyone should have difficulty acknowledging that its unusual to have a family with four autistic children. It should also be possible to acknowledge that, even if services for people with disabilities were generally adequate, it would be difficult to cope with four dependent children in the one household.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

If its down to perceptions, I have the feeling that you are trying to bring the argument back to how this situation came to pass (even though I have conceded several times that we don’t know enough to comment sensibly) because you feel that is a point where you don’t have to concede any ground.
.

And what I'm saying is a family who have been asking for help privately for years, and saying they can't cope with the situation as it. Last year they took part of a documentary which wasn't easy for them if you can imagine who uncomfortable it is for a normal family to undergo the trauma of a camera crew you have understand that this is a family who are trying to make their youngest children express their needs through pictograms. In short they made a desperate appeal a year ago asking for help, and they were ignored until the health board who state the family prove a warm loving environment for their children need their children in care. And the outrage is this, the family ask for help for years and recieved sub standard response until the health board feel the need to tear the family apart. The question is preventive care, why does a family desperately wanting to provide a home for their family, and the health board only intervene at the last minute.

You started moralising that we didn't know the facts of the situation, but were happy to stand judgement over the family. I challenged you telling you that there was another source of infor, you nitpicked details, and backpeddled.

ishmael whale

mycroft wrote:

You started moralising that we didn't know the facts of the situation,

I’m not moralizing. It’s simply the situation. The HSE cannot give an account of their actions, so we don’t have a full picture.

mycroft wrote:

but were happy to stand judgement over the family

Again you try to bring it back to the point I already conceded yesterday.

mycroft wrote:

I challenged you telling you that there was another source of infor, you nitpicked details, and backpeddled.

Describing me as ‘nitpicking details’ is surely only an attempt by you to gloss over the plain fact that a superficial knowledge based on media reports is enough to reveal minor errors in what you are saying. I’m not backpeddling. I’m simply pointing out that your alleged insight is questionable by someone who knows as little about the case as me, how long would you last debating with someone who really understood the case?

Your descriptions of the content of the documentary reveals that life is very difficult if you have four autistic children. No-one disputes that, but you seem to think that if you batter me with enough sensation you can drown out reason. You can’t.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

Describing me as ‘nitpicking details’ is surely only an attempt by you to gloss over the plain fact that a superficial knowledge based on media reports is enough to reveal minor errors in what you are saying. I’m not backpeddling. I’m simply pointing out that your alleged insight is questionable by someone who knows as little about the case as me, how long would you last debating with someone who really understood the case?

Lets get down to brass tacks

In my orginal post I waded in, it'd been a year since I'd looked at the source material and I had some gaps in my knowledge. The two youngest kids have learning disabilities to the point their parents are trying to get them to communication with pictograms. The age difference between them is too brief for any level of autistic diagnosis to have been helpful neither would it have been helpful between them and the older children. The parents wanted a large family, but could have no way know the children would have been autistic at any point before it was too late. While I agree I should have re checked my facts before I posted I don't believe the core point about the family not being aware of autistism before they had the children, is true, and you are now trying to split hairs to save face.

The North eastern/south eastern health border gaff, if the kind of challenge that any reporter would use on news night/prime time if I had got the board name wrong by accident corrected himself, when challenged, and the apologised, and the interviewer kept coming back on the mistake, I think Paxman or O'Riordan would be called on point scoring for the sake of it, and y'know, they'd be right

But potentially some good could be done by promoting a responsible attitude to parenthood.

But my honest first reaction to media coverage of this particular case was incredulity at how anyone would put themselves in the position of having four autistic children. Our cock-eyed debates over contraception have cast a long shadow.

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

Clearly the dyslexia is only relevant in the context of planning a family where one child already requires extra support. The question relates more to the second and third child, where there seems to be a clear gap of four years between each.

I’m simply advocating promotion of family planning, whereas you seem comfortable with compulsory fertility control for teenagers.

So what are you saying? That the normal rules regarding confidentiality in such cases should be suspended if parents contact the media, or during a by-election, or what? Do you really think the situation would be improved if the HSE and parents of children in care got into public slagging matches on the merits of their respective cases?

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

To get you back on track, I’m accepting that I don’t have enough information to comment on how more State promotion of family planning might have helped in this particular case

No we can see a clear path of back pedaling on your part. Without an admission of guilt about factual errors, but then after being called on it on me, after you, stand judgement on the family most clearly in the above posts, and then retract your position without, actually, retracting your position, but then nicely, start accusing me of getting my position wrong.

Hey, nice move, SF may need a PR officer.......you're that stylish.....

Ok could mycroft and Ishmael go back to discussing the topic at hand now,rather than getting bogged down on point scoring exercises.

And mycroft, a bit of advice, theres a preview post button that you can click to proof read your post before clicking the submit post button:)
I suggest you use it to avoid any simple mistakes and they do look like simple mistakes to me, so theres no need for anyone to be making an issue out of them,its distracting from the discussion on the rights and wrongs of what the HSE did here.

From the news coverage I saw of the protest,I gather other parents also bereft of the proper facilities for the care of their children feared that this was going to be a precedent and that is a genuine fear and a genuine reason on its own for the protest.
It would be my view that the best place where possible for anyone to be cared for is in their own home and with the people that love them which in this case is the parents.
Like everyone else,I'm at a loss to understand the Hse's move and its apparent relation to the case being aired in public untill such time as the Hse accounts for its actions.
I suspect that , they will do this(if not already) via the parents and then the parents will pass on the reasoning to us plus the public together with any concern they have against the Hse's reasoning.
The protest is also right,I think, for a second reason and that is, it has put a spotlight on the local Hse making it imperative that they account for their actions properly(It was a large item on the 9pm news the other night for instance), the family can be comforted by the numbers supporting them which should ensure that is done;for if it isnt the media will most likely be probing further at the behest of the protesters.

ishmael whale

Earthman

Let me acknowledge that you are absolutely right, and if I hadn’t left my common sense at home today I’d agree with you.

Mycroft

To be clear, what ‘judgement’ do you think I’m passing on the family?
And what factual error are you suggesting I’ve made?

What I see is my initial comment, which is simply my honest reaction that the case suggests to me a need for family planning, and my later acceptance that we don’t have enough information to make pronouncements in this case. I’m not contesting this, and I don’t see why you keep bringing it up. Unless your trying to follow the Miriam O’Callaghan approach of repeating an irrelevant sensational point in the hope that if you say it with enough confidence no-one will notice you’re lost and rudderless.

I accept that I don’t have enough information to state if the arrival of four children with autism was any more predictable than a Tsunami. I don’t accept that what you have said about your Prime Time documentary tells us anything more than the parents are under great pressure, and that they feel the support received from the HSE is inadequate. (Be absolutely clear – I have not seen this documentary, so I’m just following your account of it.)

The visual images you’ve seen might be disturbing, but as I’ve said before that simply illustrates what no-one contests. But even in a country with reasonable provision for people with disabilities a home with a large number of highly dependant children would probably present disturbing images. That doesn’t add much to the issue at hand.

Are services for people with disabilities inadequate in this country? Probably. The health services in general are shoddy, so I see no reason to believe this sector escaped. Is this a typical case illustrative of that failure? Probably not, but I bet it made great television.

Boggle

and my later acceptance that we don’t have enough information to make pronouncements in this case.

There's more than enough information to have serious concerns. Like I said last time it sends out a dangerous signal to others concerning provision of services for the handicapped: Don't speak out about you plight, or you might lose your kids.

Like I said last time the least I would expect, given the clumsy nature of this case is (and I quote):

What I would like to see, given that this case is in the public domain, is a public representative examine the case and at least come out and say that a) yes they had a reason for reoving the kids and b) it was not an act of retribution from the HSE.

ishmael wrote:

Are services for people with disabilities inadequate in this country? Probably. The health services in general are shoddy, so I see no reason to believe this sector escaped. Is this a typical case illustrative of that failure? Probably not, but I bet it made great television.

Well if a family with 4 autistic children can't get help then what about the other (lesser?!) cases where there is only one? Your whole attitude is dismissive in this thread - you state that we cannot comment on the case as the HSE can't comment. Thats bull - there are several sources of information listed above stating that the family were a good family, and obvious signs of apathy on the HSE's side of things. Any idiot can see this situation stinks...

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

What I would like to see, given that this case is in the public domain, is a public representative examine the case and at least come out and say that a) yes they had a reason for reoving the kids and b) it was not an act of retribution from the HSE.

As I understand it such matters are dealt with by the Courts, and that’s how you get your independent scrutiny.

Boggle wrote:

…. there are several sources of information listed above …. Any idiot can see this situation stinks...

All I see listed are media reports. Are you suggesting that the decision to take children into care should depend on the extent to which parents can enlist support of the media?

Boggle

As I understand it such matters are dealt with by the Courts, and that’s how you get your independent scrutiny.

No they'll just rule on where the children will go. They will not rule on the behaviour of the HSE. That's what this thread is about...

All I see listed are media reports. Are you suggesting that the decision to take children into care should depend on the extent to which parents can enlist support of the media?

No. All cases should be treated the same... on both sides. Do you think those kids would have been taken away if they never highlighted the situation?
Why would the media support them if they were bad parents?

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

No they'll just rule on where the children will go. They will not rule on the behaviour of the HSE. That's what this thread is about...

I’m not clear on what you are expecting here. The HSE seem to have an obligation to intervene where they see a risk to a child. They apply to the Courts who seem to be able to give them an immediate short-term order, after which they have to make a more detailed case for the child to either stay in care or under their supervision.

If the HSE were found to have taken a child into care for some reason other than because they believed there was a risk, this would presumably come to light at the more detailed hearing and leave the HSE exposed to a claim for damages. Clearly if the Courts found that the HSE acted in good faith, but their fears subsequently proved groundless, there would be no basis for damages. Either way, the essential need that the HSE should be accountable to an independent arbitrator seems to be part and parcel of the system.

That’s unless we want to tear up the Constitution and replace it with a system of trial by print media, with an ultimate right of appeal to Prime Time.

Boggle wrote:

No. All cases should be treated the same... on both sides. Do you think those kids would have been taken away if they never highlighted the situation?

I know nothing about why the HSE acted, and therefore cannot usefully comment. I have already acknowledged that if the HSE are found to have abused their necessary powers, it has frightening implications.

Boggle wrote:

Why would the media support them if they were bad parents?

I think if you reflect on this, particularly bearing in mind what I’ve said above, you’ll let this pass.

Boggle

That’s unless we want to tear up the Constitution and replace it with a system of trial by print media, with an ultimate right of appeal to Prime Time.

Now thats just silly.

I think if you reflect on this, particularly bearing in mind what I’ve said above, you’ll let this pass.

No but I'll give my thinking on it and let you decide if you think I have a point or not...

Firstly, primetime were doing a story on the plight of the disabled. When picking a story I'm sure they had a number of candidates and chose their subject on several grounds. Primarily, this would have been chosen as it is a worst case scenario in many ways and shows up alot of the failings of the state towards the handicapped. Secondly, having 4 autistic kids and getting no help has a sensationalist elemnt in it. Finally, no professional would choose a family which they feel may be negligent towards their kids as this would come back to bite them and reduce their credibility.

If the HSE were found to have taken a child into care for some reason other than because they believed there was a risk, this would presumably come to light at the more detailed hearing and leave the HSE exposed to a claim for damages.

I would say that unless an inquiry is ordered into the circumstances of the seizure then we will probably not know what happened.
The court will only be allowed deal with the family, not the HSE...